Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Religion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

Thats my opinion

(2,001 posts)
Sat Feb 16, 2013, 08:46 PM Feb 2013

The God problem (part 2) [View all]

If you have not read THE GOD PROBLEM (part1), it would be helpful to do so before getting to this post.

Two generations ago, the world’s leading theological mind, Paul Tillich, who was also a distinguished student of science, struggled with how to define God in a post-Copernican age. The pre- Copernican world, including the era which produced the Bible, traditionally referred to God as a being who existed in a supernatural realm. Tillich suggested that a better way to understand God was as ”the ground of being.” Tillich, then at Harvard before moving to the University of Chicago, has since become the core theologian for modern religious studies including seminary trained persons.

To understand God as “the ground of being”—the energy in, through and underneath all that is—suggest a very different notion of revelation. If traditionally we have thought of revelation as coming down from God in one form or another, in a post-Copernican world we may see revelation coming up from the depth of human experience, a natural not a supernatural phenomenon. God is not a person, but the energy which is both under and within everything. God is not identical with nature, ala Spinoza, but the energy within everything—animate objects, history, human experience—indeed the cosmos.

We can still understand the Bible as crucial to faith if we realize that revelation does not come down from some supernatural world, but up from human experience. That is the way God speaks to us—through nature, culture and ordinary events. The Bible is the record of the human struggle to understand the meaning and purpose of life, beginning with the dynamics of culture. Pre-Copernican Biblical history is the story of a people who sought to discover this authenticity—God—from above. A post-Copernican religious people must seek to discover God within both history and nature, not as a person but as the energy which gives meaning to everything. This is the God who is not only in us, but in all things.

No one comes closer to this meaning than the author of the great poem in the second chapter of Colossians when he uses a little Greek phrase “ta panta” which means ‘all things.’ His image is the God recognized in Christ whom he describes this way. “…for in him all things, (ta panta) in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions, or rulers or powers…. He himself is before all things (ta panta), and in him all things (ta panta) hold together.” That image is also pointed to in the prelude to the fourth gospel. “In the beginning was the word (Greek “logos”), and the word was with God, and the word was God.” In Greek philosophy, from which the gospel writer got the word, “logos” identifies the “underlying principle governing the cosmos, the source of all human reasoning. “

When we translate this Biblical text for Asians, particularly Chinese, we use the word “Tao”. “In the beginning was the Tao.” It is the same grand idea. The Tao, or Word, is not a created thing or being, but that which is underneath and within all things (ta panta), the energy which gives life.

So what is this energy which is at the heart of the universe, and which we call God? We must have ordinary understandable ways to both access it and express it. So we call it love, justice, peace, equity, purpose, meaning. While Asians call it the Tao, Greeks called is Sophia—wisdom. Every religion has buried within it this sense of wonder about what is beyond and underneath all creation. The thrust of this energy was best philosophically depicted by Teihard de Chardin’s omega point, and Bergson’s élan vital. It is what makes the universe alive! The God of this notion is the heart and substance of all things. (ta panta)

A third post will discuss the development of religious institutions from this concept of God.

54 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The God problem (part 2) [View all] Thats my opinion Feb 2013 OP
This is not significantly different rrneck Feb 2013 #1
Everything is energy of one form or another Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #2
A D please reread Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #3
The problem I have with this that if you are trying to look at something in a different way Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #4
Significant statement ! Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #6
You are assuming that 'love' started with religion Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #9
Since most people use the word God with some sort of meaning Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #11
See that is a lot of the problem Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #15
A remarkable post Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #16
I do get very angry... trotsky Feb 2013 #41
Feel good about yourself skepticscott Feb 2013 #24
And still managed a dig at "non-religious bigots" who dare to question the Great One. mr blur Feb 2013 #27
And I don't even think he realizes skepticscott Feb 2013 #30
........... Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #31
In the end, what difference does it make? BlueStreak Feb 2013 #28
It would be a lot more fun Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #38
If I'm reading you correctly okasha Feb 2013 #5
Very, very close to what I mean. Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #7
That brings me to rwo more questions,then. okasha Feb 2013 #13
Coextensive many be a limiting word. Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #17
I thought you meant panentheism, okasha Feb 2013 #19
Try this definition from Tom Hayden Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #42
Thanks. okasha Feb 2013 #45
The problem is you're trying to pass off as some "new revelation of God" Leontius Feb 2013 #8
You got it ! Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #10
A great post for the Religion group goldent Feb 2013 #12
I find the field you are describing fascinating. Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #18
There is a philosophical theory that is something like your idea about the nature of matter. Jim__ Feb 2013 #20
Even if you accept that notion skepticscott Feb 2013 #23
I was talking about the human understanding of the nature of matter. Jim__ Feb 2013 #25
And that understanding skepticscott Feb 2013 #29
I hadn't heard of that before, but it seems right goldent Feb 2013 #34
May the Force be with you! backscatter712 Feb 2013 #14
The similarities have been remarked on before muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #52
For those who care, it's the first chapter of Colossians, not the second muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #21
Whoops! Typo. Of course it is Colossians 1 Thanks for trhe correction nt Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #40
However, you're still not addressing the problems of quoting a believer in the person of God muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #47
Colossians as two foci--parrticularly in this first poetic chapter. Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #51
Perhaps you could explain again skepticscott Feb 2013 #22
Sounds like you are discribing "the ether" edhopper Feb 2013 #26
Charles, you were right. I did "predict" you would say some of those things. SarahM32 Feb 2013 #32
There's that phrase skepticscott Feb 2013 #33
We shouldn't assume this isn't "Joseph Adamson" making the posts himself muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #35
Exactly skepticscott Feb 2013 #36
With that most recent post, it seems very likely to be Adamson himself. trotsky Feb 2013 #37
Indeed; I notice he's now taken the Adamson name off the bottom of the website pages muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #54
So with this I assume you have formally abandoned your first thread... trotsky Feb 2013 #39
Hmm... Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #43
Please, TMO skepticscott Feb 2013 #44
Ancient history, literary criticism and Biblical indterpretation Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #46
It's even more amazing okasha Feb 2013 #49
Ok, perhaps you might elaborate. Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #50
hate to say it but this was glaring. a sore thumb Phillip McCleod Feb 2013 #53
Very interesting deutsey Feb 2013 #48
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»The God problem (part 2)»Reply #0